[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 RENEWING THE AMERICAN DREAM--WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT 
                                 AGAIN?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and May 23, 1994, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Hoekstra] is recognized for 60 minutes as the minority leader's 
designee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I get the sense from reading the papers, 
from listening to my constituents, and from participating in the 
legislative process in Congress, that people are quickly approaching a 
boiling point over the direction and future of the United States.
  While unemployment in my State of Michigan reached historic lows 
according to recent statistics, the information is almost irrelevant to 
the emotional and psychological disposition of the State.
  Somehow, in some way, people understand that the problems facing 
America today are more than skin deep. They are not going away.

                              {time}  2130

  They are part of a national crisis that involves something deep and 
more significant than the latest economic statistics? People know there 
is something wrong with our country, and they want us to confront the 
issues.
  So that is what I intend to do here today. I am here to talk about 
the United States. Personally, I have no president and no political 
party to defend.
  In many ways, we are all to blame. You, me, and every voting age man 
and woman in this country. Our problems were not completely caused by 
government, nor will they be completely solved by government. They are 
deeper than that. And I, for one, am not going to trivialize our 
Nation's problems by suggesting that some magical welfare reform bill, 
or crime bill, or health care reform bill, is going to solve our 
problems.
  You see, no civilization can survive with 12 year olds having babies, 
15 year olds killing one another, 17 year olds dying of AIDS, and 18 
year olds graduating with diplomas they cannot read.
  This is not a liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican 
question; as Americans, we are all faced with the decay of our 
civilization. And, in our own way, we have contributed to it.
  So what must we do? What can we do to reverse this decline and set in 
motion a vision that will restore hope and renew the American dream?
  Let us begin by defining our economic an cultural environment. Our 
generation has the opportunity and responsibility to deal with three 
big facts:
  First, the information age--Alvin Toffler's Third Wave of Change--is 
real and will change our economy, it must change our government, our 
society, and each of us.
  The latest Business Week Magazine describes the Information 
Revolution and how digital technology is changing the way we live.
  This should be required reading for all Federal employees. Just the 
headlines of the articles are instructive: Faster, Smaller, Cheaper; 
The Keys of the Future; A Gigabyte on Every Desk; The New Face of 
Business; The Great Equalizer; Breaking the Chains of Command; and 
last, but not least, Washington Bogs Down on Booting Up.
  The question we must ask ourselves is this: Is a large, bureaucratic 
government capable of keeping up with what's happening with the 
Information Revolution? I certainly applaud Vice President Gore's 
efforts to press forward with the national infrastructure. But while we 
might be able to facilitate progress in one area, we are increasing the 
size and scope of government in other areas. We must understand and 
respond adequately to the Information Revolution. This means keeping 
government as small as possible, while working with private industry at 
creating opportunities for all Americans.
  The second big fact we must acknowledge is that the world market is 
real and unescapable, no matter how much we might like to. We can build 
walls around the United States and create protectionist measures, but 
all that will do is increase opportunities for our competitors.
  Failure to aggressively pursue global market opportunities is harmful 
to the American people, both as workers and consumers. And since we 
must be competitive to survive, we will need to be more productive, 
more innovative and more entrepreneurial than other nations. To do 
this, America will have to re-think taxation, litigation and regulation 
in the context of the global marketplace. From education to welfare to 
the size of the government, every policy has to be reassessed to 
improve our ability to compete globally.
  Finally, we must, as a society, acknowledge that the welfare state 
has failed. Every night we see the proof of failure on the local TV 
news.
  The welfare state has failed because it is profoundly wrong about 
human beings.
  The welfare state reduces a citizen to a client, subordinates them to 
a bureaucrat, and subjects them to rules that are anti-work, anti-
family, anti-property, and anti-opportunity.
  Any group of humans subjected to treatment like this would develop 
the social pathologies we see in the news.
  These three facts establish the framework by which we should assess 
the country and world in which we live. This is the current 
environment. And these three big facts are the way things are, as I see 
it. I think all the evidence available at this time confirms this.
  What must we do?
  First, we must replace the welfare state, and the mentality that goes 
with it. Not improve, not repair, not finance--replace the welfare 
state.
  In a nutshell, we must change the way we think about government and 
its proper role in American society. Currently, our government is way 
too big, it spends way too much, and it is choking businesses with 
paternalistic regulations and excessive taxation. We are mandating 
workplace cooperation at the expense of entrepreneurship and creativity 
in labor-management relations. And we are about to debate a health care 
reform bill that will place a large segment of our health care industry 
under the control of the Federal Government.
  Beyond paternalism, the welfare state fails to motivate human beings 
by taking away the incentives to work hard and get ahead. This is 
probably the greatest crime of the modern welfare state. People who are 
dependent on government welfare are not motivated to seek 
opportunities. Those who are choking from government regulation and 
taxation are not motivated to seek new opportunities. Why? Because 
under the current system, success is taxed and failure is subsidized.
  This is the welfare state. Some might call it socialist. I just call 
it inefficient, outdated, and the road to failure. It fails to 
recognize the rapid changes of the information age. It fails to accept 
the challenge of world economic competition, and fails to give American 
businesses the tools they need to compete.
  What will replace the welfare state? If the term ``welfare state'' 
implies government policies and programs that stifle economic growth, 
and limit opportunity and freedom, then we must replace the welfare 
state with policies and programs that encourage economic growth, 
opportunity and freedom.
  For this reason, we must replace the welfare state with an 
opportunity society.
  While the welfare state emphasizes government, redistribution of the 
wealth and bureaucratic rules and regulations--leading to a government 
that is too big and spends too much--the opportunity society is based 
on a much broader vision of freedom that emphasizes citizens, and the 
creation of wealth.
  The welfare state emphasizes problems.
  The opportunity society emphasizes opportunities.
  The welfare state emphasizes victimization.
  The opportunity society emphasizes personal responsibility.

                              {time}  2140

  The welfare state emphasizes Government paternalism. The opportunity 
society emphasizes empowerment. The welfare state emphasizes the safety 
net. The opportunity society emphasizes family and community.
  The welfare state overemphasizes the role of Government and 
concentrates too much power and responsibility in Government. The 
opportunity society emphasizes small but powerful Government that 
protects private property, promotes free markets, preserves human 
dignity, and defends American ideals around the world.
  I believe that the American people want an opportunity society. This 
is not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. Instead it is a 
principle-centered, vision-driven government implementing policies that 
conform to accepted virtues. Overwhelmingly, Americans favor work 
replacing welfare, strengthening the family, national initiative and 
referendum, term limits for Members of Congress, reducing the size of 
Government, fewer lawsuits. They are against quotas, for a balanced 
budget, they are for a line item veto and help recognize that small 
businesses and entrepreneurs are the engine that fuels and runs our 
economy.
  Has Congress passed one bill in the past 17 months that truly 
highlights any of these policy objectives? I believe the answer is 
clearly ``no,'' but what have we done if we have been here for 17 
months, what have we done during the last 17 months is Congress has 
increased the size of Government, we passed the biggest tax increase in 
American history, we have implemented racial quotas in sentencing for 
important capital crimes, we have expanded the welfare state through 
billions of dollars in new social programs to improve teenagers' self-
esteem. We have rejected the Presidential line item veto. We have 
heaped more regulations on businesses through mandated family leave 
laws and other laws, defeated a balanced budget amendment. This is just 
what damage Congress has already done in the last 17 months. Consider 
what we are working on: A huge Federal bureaucracy to take control of 
the health care industry and more increased taxes to pay for it, a 
welfare reform bill that will actually cost the Federal Government more 
money, continued dependency and increased taxes to pay for it, new OSHA 
regulations that could wipe out many small and medium-sized businesses. 
Government is getting bigger and we are going to continue spending more 
and when we cannot go back to the American people for more taxes, we 
will just mandate the regulations on business so our consumers will pay 
hidden taxes through higher prices on the goods they buy.
  So what would legislation look like that would emphasize the 
principles and ideals of an opportunity society? I will have a longer 
list in a few minutes but let me talk about one item that will break 
the paradigm of how we do business here in Washington. I believe 
perhaps a first step should be to give all Americans a greater voice in 
setting the agenda in what we do here in Washington. After 1992, after 
the elections, the American people thought they had sent a clear 
message to Washington. But Washington has not gotten it. We just do not 
get it.
  I recognize, after my first 2 or 3 months in Washington that very 
little was going to change in this Congress, without the active 
participation of the American people. We can make changes here in 
Washington, but the American people have to become more involved in the 
process to let us know what they want us to do. They had used the 
greatest tools in the November election to help set the agenda for the 
Congress and the President. Yet Congress has done nothing. What was 
that tool? It was the election process, but with 110 new Members this 
Congress looks much like the old Congress that served before the new 
reform-minded agenda the American people thought they were going to be 
getting. That is why in April of last year I introduced my first two 
pieces of legislation calling for a constitutional amendment providing 
for a national voter initiative process. Those of you from States that 
like Michigan, allow voter initiative at the State level, understand 
what an initiative could do. Voters across the Nation would have the 
opportunity to circulate petitions, to get a law or a constitutional 
amendment or a proposal to repeal a law on the ballot in all 50 States. 
A vote would then be held at the next regularly scheduled general 
election.

  This process would give the American people the opportunity to help 
set the agenda for the Nation.
  I have few doubts that if we had the national voter initiative in the 
United States we would have term limits, we would have a Presidential 
line-item veto, I believe we would have lower taxes, we would have less 
regulation, we would have a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. These basic reform proposals which seem so simple will 
not pass this Congress. In fact, Congress will not even debate term 
limits, it will not even come to the floor for a vote. We must 
seriously consider a national voter initiative and referendum process 
so that the American people can have a greater say in the way decisions 
are made for them in Washington. It is an element of an opportunity 
society providing the American people with an opportunity to reclaim a 
hold on this institution in what we do here, for them to take back 
Government. What are other major items that are part of an agenda of 
change that adhere to the principles that we would find in an 
opportunity society: Principles of personal strength, individual 
liberty, and limited government.
  Major parts of the agenda are term limits for Members of Congress, we 
would have people flowing in and out of this institution. A balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution. We would recognize that deficit 
spending is robbing from future generations and is unfair to them. We 
would have a welfare reform bill that especially emphasized work, it 
would emphasis strengthening the family and increasing the role of 
private enterprise. We would have a reform bill, malpractice and 
product liability reform, we would have a bill to strengthen families 
by ending the marriage penalties in the income tax, we would have an 
earned income tax credit and social security by increasing the 
deduction for children to the Harry Truman level of approximately, in 
today's dollars, of $7,500 per child. We would have an economic growth 
bill to encourage job creation by small businesses. We would accelerate 
the rate of development of new technologies and increase American jobs 
by competing in the world market.
  Yes, we would also have a bill to shrink Government, cut spending, 
downsize the bureaucracy, to cut unfunded mandates and return power to 
local government, local communities, businesses, charities, and 
individuals.
  We would have a market oriented medical savings account, focused 
health reform bill to provide universal access for all Americans if 
none has been passed this year.
  Ultimately each of us must decide what our role will be in replacing 
the welfare state with an opportunity society and renewing the American 
dream. This is no easy task. It requires that we change our assumptions 
about what Government can or cannot do. It requires that we establish 
the basic principles that create the standards by which we judge public 
policy. When we consider policy changes we must ask whether they meet 
some basic criteria. Does the policy encourage personal responsibility? 
Does the policy maintain personal liberty and freedom? Does this policy 
grow Government or does it shrink it? Does this policy strengthen 
families? Does this policy support entrepreneurship and free 
enterprise? Or does this policy make us more secure both physically and 
financially?

                              {time}  2150

  If a policy proposal meets these criteria, chances are it is a good 
policy. If it does not meet these criteria, it should not be pursued.
  We should go through every program, every law, every tax, every 
regulation in the Federal Government and ask these questions. We should 
do it for every new law, but perhaps more importantly we should do an 
audit of all of the bills and the laws that we are currently working 
under and see whether they meet these criteria. Perhaps this Congress 
should spend 3 to 4 months doing nothing but auditing previous laws 
before we pass any new ones to see exactly what kind of environment we 
have created. What are the results of the laws that we have passed?
  Mr. Speaker, maybe, if we do this, we can renew the American dream 
and return America to its historic greatness.
  Recently I had the opportunity to talk more in depth about my 
initiative and referendum proposal, and I would like to go back to that 
by restating some of the things that I talked about in another special 
order a few nights ago. I want to talk about it because it was very 
interesting. I received calls from around the country telling me that 
this was a good idea, people asking me how they could be involved in 
the process to let them reclaim at least a portion of the agenda that 
we are working on here in Washington.
  We talked about the frustration that night that the American people 
feel with their government and their elected leaders. We talked about 
the fact that the root of this frustration is the perception that, no 
matter how many incumbent politicians lose to eager newcomers, the most 
important issues on the voters' minds are not addressed. We talked 
about it here on the floor. I talked about it with those people who 
called my office.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem and one which will not go away 
until this institution recognizes it and takes bold steps to 
demonstrate to the American people that we not only care about what 
they think, but that we are willing to take concrete steps, concrete 
action, to reconnect the voters with the agenda here in Washington.
  My legislation, H.R. 3835, would provide for a national referendum on 
term limits for the November 8 election of this year. However, through 
the number of phone calls and the input that I have received from 
people around the country, we are going to expand the agenda for H.R. 
3825. Not only now will it be a national referendum on term limits, but 
we are going to expand it by trying to move for three questions on the 
November 8 ballot. We are going to talk about congressional reform. We 
are going to set the agenda here in Washington. Let us really do it, 
and let us get those issues on the forefront on this national 
initiative on November 8. Let us ask the question about term limits. 
Let us ask the question about a balanced budget amendment. And let us 
talk about the need for a line-item veto.
  Mr. Speaker, if I were a constituent of a Member of the House who has 
not cosponsored H.R. 3835, the National Voice on Term Limits Act, I 
would probably give him or her a call and ask that he cosponsor this 
important piece of legislation. The American people deserve a voice on 
term limits, and in the expanded version they deserve a voice on a 
balanced budget amendment, and they deserve a voice on this line-item 
veto. This body will not even debate the term limit issue. We have 
debated the balance budget amendment and the line-item veto, but we 
have not had the resolve to pass them. Perhaps we need to hear more 
clearly from the American people what they want us to do.
  Mr. Speaker, in over 200 years Congress has held only 2 to 3 hours of 
hearings on term limits. It is high time Congress takes action on term 
limits and that is provides the American people with a way to send a 
clear signal to us on the balanced budget amendment and on a line-item 
veto. My bill, H.R. 3835, the national referendum on term limits, and 
now the balanced budget and the line-item veto, would place these 
issues on the ballot on November 8, not of 1996, but of this year. We 
can pass it this year if the American people will call their Congress 
people to tell them to take a look and to tell them and to tell all of 
us that they want a voice on setting the agenda here in Washington.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, the American people in 5\1/2\ months 
would have the opportunity to vote on these issues and send a clear 
signal to every Member of Congress what they wanted. But perhaps more 
importantly, between now and November 8, we would move that debate to 
the national forefront.
  Why is that important? I believe the American people have the 
opportunity and need the opportunity to hear a full debate on the 
balanced budget and the line-item veto. We have debated it here in this 
House, but let us take it to the people and provide them with the 
opportunity.
  But let us take a look at term limits. What has happened with term 
limits? Three hours of debate in a committee hearing in 1994.
  Where else have term limits been debated? Mr. Speaker, you have 
debated them in the courts because they have been challenged in those 
States where the people have spoken and want term limits. So, the 
debate is being held in the courts, not in Congress, not in front of 
the American people, but in some small courtroom in Washington and in 
Arkansas. Let us take the debate where it should be, and that is in 
front of the American people.
  Yes, that is what H.R. 3835, the national referendum on these issues, 
would do. Every American would have the opportunity to listen to the 
debate, to participate in the debate and then have this opportunity to 
vote on November 8 as they elect the next Congress.
  I say, ``When you go to vote for the candidate of your choice on 
November 8, you'll also then be given the opportunity to vote yes or no 
on these issues.''
  Mr. Speaker, what a great opportunity for the American people to 
express their views on these issues to their government. But, more 
importantly, what a powerful and new way to reconnect Congress and the 
American people just when we need it most, just when we now recognize 
that our popularity, and I do not care about popularity, but when 80 
percent of the people believe that Congress is doing a poor job, it is 
time for us to reconnect with the American people and provide them with 
the opportunity to influence us so that, when we come back in January 
1995, we can respond to the national referendum that they have given 
us, that they will have provided us input on November 8, and we can 
start 1995 off with a great opportunity to meet and respond to their 
feedback.
  But there is a slight problem, as there always is in Washington. It 
is funny how that always happens. I introduced my bill in February, and 
it is still bottled up in the Subcommittee on Elections. I did receive 
a letter from the chairman of the committee stating that he will not 
have time for hearings until later this fall. I feel pretty good about 
that because maybe we will have hearings this fall, but again the small 
problem is, Mr. Speaker, if he had read the bill, which his staff 
probably did, they are well aware that I am seeking a national 
referendum on these issues in November 1994, not 1996 or 1998.

                              {time}  2200

  If the Subcommittee on Elections does not have time until this fall, 
then what they are saying is that they do not have time to consider my 
bill at all. After all, why would the subcommittee consider a bill in 
November that calls for a national referendum in November? There is no 
way we would be able to get it done.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is deliberate stonewalling of this 
proposal in the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections. It 
suggests to me that the chairman opposes this national referendum idea 
and has, therefore, decided that the Subcommittee on Elections does not 
have the time to talk about it or to act on it. This is a shame. Every 
poll I have seen in the last few years has public support for term 
limits at over 75 percent. Yes, 75 to 80 percent of the American people 
support term limits. The numbers for the balanced budget and line-item 
veto are similar. But most importantly, this would provide us the 
opportunity to reconnect.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better, they deserve a voice 
on their government and what we do. The American people deserve the 
chance to vote on these issues. Actually, they deserve much more than 
that. They really deserve a better, a more effective and a more 
responsive government.

  Mr. Speaker, like I said earlier, if I were a constituent, I would 
wonder whether my Congressman or my Congresswoman is a cosponsor of 
H.R. 3835, the National Referendum on Term Limits. The only way the 
American people will have a chance to vote on term limits or a balanced 
budget or a line-item veto on November 8 is to call their Congressman 
or Congresswoman and ask him or her to cosponsor this legislation. Only 
then will the leadership in this Chamber, including the Speaker of the 
House, Mr. Foley, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Elections, 
Mr. Swift, both from the State of Washington, allow this proposal to be 
voted on.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people should be outraged. How many 
Americans must support term limits, a balanced budget and a line item 
veto before Congress will vote on it? Already 80 percent support term 
limits. Do 90 percent of the American people need to support term 
limits before the House will vote on it? Ninety-five percent? Ninety-
eight percent? At what point in time will Congress take up the issue of 
term limits and when will we provide the opportunity to the American 
people to give us feedback on a balanced budget amendment and a line-
item veto? When will this Congress be serious about reconnecting with 
the American people in restoring out trust with them?
  Mr. Speaker, if I were at home right now in my living room watching 
this on C-SPAN, I would be asking whether my Representative was willing 
to give me a voice on the issue of term limits. I would be asking, what 
is my Congressperson doing to restore the credibility of Congress? I 
would pick up my phone, probably tomorrow morning, or I would get out a 
piece of paper, write a note to my Representative in Congress asking 
him or her to give me a voice on these issues, to cosponsor 3835, the 
national referendum on term limits.
  If I were a constituent, I would ask my Representative to give me a 
chance to vote on these issues in a national election on November 8 of 
this year, just 5\1/2\ months from now. I would ask my Representative 
to try to experiment in democracy, to see whether we can elevate the 
debate on these issues to such a level that when I went and they went 
to the polls on November 8, they felt that they really now understood 
these issues, they felt that they were now prepared to make a decision 
to instruct their Members of Congress on these issues and, therefore, 
would go to the polls on November 8 in ever-increasing numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the problems we have today in this country is 
voter turnout is too low. I think people are checking out. I would hope 
that through a 5\1/2\-month process of aggressive debate on these 
issues, people would come back to the polls and they would say, I am 
going to give it one more shot, I am going to give it two more shots, I 
am going to give it three shots because I am going to have an 
opportunity to vote on three issues. We have had a great debate, I have 
learned a lot about these issues, I have elevated my level of 
understanding from down here to about this thick to really now 
understanding what the pluses and the minuses of these three issues 
are. I am not sure that all three of them would pass. I think that as 
we went through the debate, there would be positive arguments on both 
sides of the issue and that many people who now perhaps have a knee-
jerk reaction to these three items would be more informed and might 
change their minds. But the important thing is that we would have the 
debate, we would have an intellectual debate that involved this 
Congress, that would involve all of the leaders on both sides of the 
issue in a constructive way to elevate the democracy in this country 
and get it working again.
  If I were a constituent, like I said, I would be calling this 
Congress, I would be calling our Speaker and asking him, ``What are you 
doing to restore democracy? Are you willing to let me participate just 
a little bit on three issues on November 1994 to help instruct Congress 
and give the Congress that starts in January 1995 just a little bit of 
an idea of how we feel?''
  Mr. Speaker, it is part of an opportunity society. It is talking 
about innovation, it is talking about entrepreneurship, and it is 
talking about empowerment, empowering and moving some responsibility of 
instructing Congress back to where it should be. I believe that is what 
the people would do in an election, anyway, is instruct their 
Congresspeople on the issues. This provides a clearer forum for them to 
do that, and we need to take a chance. It is not a big risk. It is an 
opportunity to fix a system that today 80 percent of the American 
people feel is broken. We need to do it now. The level of frustration 
by the American people of this Congress is too high.
  Mr. Speaker, if we in this Chamber would give the American people the 
opportunity to vote on term limits, on a balanced budget amendment, on 
a line-item veto this fall, it would go a long way toward 
reestablishing trust between the American people and their elected 
leaders in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will cosponsor H.R. 3835, the 
opportunity for the American people to have a voice in their government 
again.

                          ____________________